If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

".....Barnet was sent for, and he at once identified the body as that of Kelly or "Ginger", as she was called owing to the colour of her hair".

This sentence was preceded by a description of the preliminary examination conducted by the doctors, and the photographer taking pictures...

Following the mention of Barnet, we read that the body was taken away at four o'clock.

So it seems that Barnet was brought in to the room to identify the body while it lay on the bed. And her hair was the most noticeable feature still evident.

HI Jon
Pleased to see you've stepped away from the mortuary nonsense now but all the piece you've posted there really confirms is that Barnett identified her in the room .... it does not say he identified her by hair ,not by any stretch .
It just goes on, after identification, to suggest that she was nicknamed Ginger (this was apparently one nickname of many) because of the colour of her hair .This doesn't relate to the ID in any way and the report doesn't even hint at such .

On the subject of the hair anyway , we've got ginger , fair and dark appearing ..... they can't all be correct .
We can rule out fair by looking at MJK1
Even with a b/w photo you can see the difference between fair hair and dark ....
Even for red , it would be dark red .
Having said all this, the hair was "matted with blood" according to Gabe ... giving any dark hair a red tint ..... and we have to remember how dark that room would be on a November afternoon with north facing windows showing that any supposed 'hair' ID (especially from the window) would be pretty much a nonsense

You can lead a horse to water.....

Comment

I will add,in agreement with some posters,that no matter when and how you look at it,with no other testimonies,that the man known to be with Kelly around an hour before her death (closest to the doctors's estimated time of death) was a prime suspect and the witness a main witness.Since this was not the case then the whole story was discredited.

And that's your conjecture.

Regards, Jon S.

Comment

HI Jon
Pleased to see you've stepped away from the mortuary nonsense now but all the piece you've posted there really confirms is that Barnett identified her in the room .... it does not say he identified her by hair ,not by any stretch .
It just goes on, after identification, to suggest that she was nicknamed Ginger (this was apparently one nickname of many) because of the colour of her hair .This doesn't relate to the ID in any way and the report doesn't even hint at such .

On the subject of the hair anyway , we've got ginger , fair and dark appearing ..... they can't all be correct .
We can rule out fair by looking at MJK1
Even with a b/w photo you can see the difference between fair hair and dark ....
Even for red , it would be dark red .
Having said all this, the hair was "matted with blood" according to Gabe ... giving any dark hair a red tint ..... and we have to remember how dark that room would be on a November afternoon with north facing windows showing that any supposed 'hair' ID (especially from the window) would be pretty much a nonsense

Kelly herself was described as "fair", wasn't she? That is fair as in "pretty", not as in "blonde".

Comment

HI Jon
Pleased to see you've stepped away from the mortuary nonsense now but all the piece you've posted there really confirms is that Barnett identified her in the room ....

Hi Nick.
The sequence of events dictated by the story seem to suggest this. And, the fact Barnet showed up at Millers Court while the body was still inside the room would lend itself to that interpretation.

You had raised a point I don't think had been discussed before, that of "where" exactly did Barnet identify her body.
It is quite reasonable to assume it was at the mortuary, as we know this was the normal procedure.
However, given the sequence of events dictated by that report, and I can't think of any statement which contradicts it. I can concede that he likely identified her in the room. But you have to concede it was not through the broken window - deal?

There is another well known detail which seems to contest the "through the broken window" argument, the door still being closed.
That argument would suggest Barnet arrived before they broke the door down.
Yet, we are told Barnet knew the door could be opened by reaching through the window. So, if Barnet had been there before the door was forced, it wouldn't have had to be forced, would it?

So, both points considered, Barnet identifying her "through the broken window" is just plain wrong.

Having said all this, the hair was "matted with blood" according to Gabe ... giving any dark hair a red tint ..... and we have to remember how dark that room would be on a November afternoon with north facing windows showing that any supposed 'hair' ID (especially from the window) would be pretty much a nonsense

It seems to me you are trying to resist the obvious
If it wasn't by her 'hair', and it can't have been by her 'ear' (them being cut off), then the identification was false, he can't identify her.
Yet the clothes in the room must have been what she usually wore, and the physique must have been consistent with that of Kelly. There are other details which contribute to an identification, or contest it.

And, the police are not going to accept, "this was her room, so it must be her'. They already knew from several witnesses that other women slept in that room along with Kelly - they were not stupid.
And, we have no account of them locating this "Julia", who was mentioned both by M.Lewis & Barnet. So it wasn't like "only" Kelly couldn't be traced after the murder.

Comment

What would have been the opinion of police,on Monday 12th about the man reported by Lewis as standing outside Crossinghams,in the period before Hutchinson fronted up.?

In what way, can you be more precise?

When they found he was residing only a few minutes from a police station,and that there had ben innumerable members of the police force in the area,anyone of whom could have been approached? What then?If that had been thought of as suspicious,as I think it is,fronting up at about six pm would not on it's own be enough to dispel such suspicions.So it's his story that is the focal point of Aberline's opinion?

It seems you are returning to the fact Hutchinson did not come forward on the day of the murder?

I appreciate that in order to follow my argument you would need to subscribe to the BNA, the Press Section here on Casebook does not offer much by way of local newspapers on Nov. 9th.

On the day of the murder, only the evening papers carried any mention of the crime. There is absolutely no suggestion the murder took place overnight.

The Star (here on Casebook) writes the following:"...The story of the crime current among the neighbors is that this morning - what time cannot at present be precisely ascertained, but at any rate after daylight, she took a man home to her own room, presumably for an immoral purpose. At a quarter to eleven the landlady of the house went up for the rent, and found her murdered."

No mention of Maxwell or of M.Lewis, or any suggestion the murder took place in the night.

The Echo (on Casebook), wrote:"Mary Ann Kelly was seen about the streets at one o'clock this morning....
when the mother returned to the room with the assassin.....
... the man who is suspected of having committed the murder sent the child out to buy sweets and playing he found the place in commotion, for his mother had been discovered lifeless and bleeding, and the murder had fled. There is no trace whatever of the murderer."

Nowhere to buy sweets in the middle of the night. This murderer stayed the night, and murdered her in the morning.

We also read:"At half past ten this morning the dead body of a woman was found in an untenanted outhouse or shed in Dorset-court, Dorset-street, Commercial-street, Spitalfields. It had evidently been there for some hours, but several scavengers who were in the court at nine o'clock this morning declare that the body was not there then. They might, however, have been mistaken as the place is very dark."

"Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was playing "pitch and toss" in the court at nine o'clock this morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house, and return with some milk. There is no evidence as to who was in the house with her."

"....It is confidently stated that the deceased was seen after ten o'clock this morning in company with a paramour, when they were both drinking at the public-house at the corner of Dorset-street."

There is no mention of an early morning murder theory.

Another evening paper, The Globe, wrote:"As far as can be ascertained, she was met this morning at a quarter-past eight o'clock. She was then walking down the court with a jug, and returned shortly after with some milk. In a few minutes she came out of the house and went to a small public house, where she remained drinking for about half an hour, when she went back to meet her frightful end".

"At half past ten this morning, the dead body of a woman with her head almost severed from her body was found in an untenanted outhouse or shed in Dorset court, Dorset street, Commercial street, Spitalfields. It had evidently lain there for some hours, but several scavengers who were in the court at nine o'clock this morning declare the body was not there then. They might, however, have been mistaken, as the place is very dark."
Evening News, 9 Nov.

Other evening papers like The Standard, St. James Gazette make no mention of the crime. The Pall Mall Gazette mentions the crime with details to come in a later issue.

So, if Hutchinson is going to pay any attention to what the theories were, when she was killed, it is the very day of the murder.
And, on the day of the murder he reads that all circumstances suggest she died late in the morning.
So, should he come forward to make his presence known when it wasn't necessary, or just stay away?
Then the Sat. morning papers repeat the same, c/w a few suggestions of an overnight crime.
What is he to do?
It's only on Sunday morning when the press begin to make a firm suggestion of an overnight murder.

Regards, Jon S.

Comment

At what time did the widely-reported screams of "Murder!" occur in Miller's Court? Surely the screams would have registered with Hutchinson, who'd departed Miller's Court not long before the screams were heard. Was Kelly seen with any other man after Hutchinson's alleged sighting, let alone a suspicious looking one?

Bearing these factors in mind, no amount of Caroline Maxwell or Maurice Lewis reportage could have had much of an impact on Hutchinson's coming forward with his story. Indeed, he claims to have first done so on the Sunday, so he clearly wasn't put off by stories of alleged daylight sightings of (a rather different-looking) Mary Kelly.

Comment

At what time did the widely-reported screams of "Murder!" occur in Miller's Court? Surely the screams would have registered with Hutchinson, who'd departed Miller's Court not long before the screams were heard. Was Kelly seen with any other man after Hutchinson's alleged sighting, let alone a suspicious looking one?

On Saturday the press were reporting claims of a cry of "murder" at 1:45, 2:00, 3:00, and around 3:45. These reports made it clear to the reader that such cries are common place and do not indicate the act of an actual murder. It being more of a way of drawing attention to some lesser crime or activity.

As Hutchinson was with Kelly at 2:00, he can see how unreliable such screams were. These reports obviously didn't suggest she was murdered before he met her (1:45), or while he was with her (2:00).
So why should any others be any more accurate, especially when witnesses were reporting Kelly was in the Ringers after nine o'clock Friday morning.

Even the Daily Telegraph on Saturday threw out a passing line:"Still, the crime had apparently been but recently committed at the time of its discovery, and the scent of the criminal should be fairly fresh".

The Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov. wrote:"On Thursday night she was seen in conversation with a man of rather respectable appearance, and it is believed that he spent the night in her house. The murderer made his escape apparently without exciting any attention."

Does that suggest an early morning murder to you?
Could Kelly have have had several liaisons over night before she was killed the next morning?
I would think so, so being seen with a man Thursday night indicates nothing beyond the fact she was plying her trade.

That same paper included this opinion:"JANE KELLY, it is believed, was killed between eight and half-past ten o'clock yesterday morning. There is some conflict of testimony on this head, but it would appear that in this interval the woman was seen alive, and, according to one statement, KELLY must have been abroad in the streets in company with a man with whom she returned to her lodging only a few minutes before her mutilated body was found."

Not forgetting the stories by M.Lewis & Maxwell.

Then another conclusion:"The victim is a woman of the "unfortunate" class, and the murder was committed under her own roof in broad daylight, but notwithstanding the publicity of the movements of the murderer, no reliable clue has been discovered as to the perpetrator of the crime. "

The impression is well founded, probably wrong in our view. But the public wouldn't know this at the time. The press are their only source and the number of late morning sightings far outweigh the various different times attributed to this cry of murder, whether it signified anything or not is another question.
Seeing Kelly alive the next morning certainly does signify something, she had to be alive, on that their can be no dispute.

Comment

Bearing these factors in mind, no amount of Caroline Maxwell or Maurice Lewis reportage could have had much of an impact on Hutchinson's coming forward with his story. Indeed, he claims to have first done so on the Sunday, so he clearly wasn't put off by stories of alleged daylight sightings of (a rather different-looking) Mary Kelly.

Hutchinson claimed to have possibly spotted his suspect again in Middlesex Street on Sunday morning...might that have prompted him to report his story to a PC?

Comment

Hutchinson claimed to have possibly spotted his suspect again in Middlesex Street on Sunday morning...might that have prompted him to report his story to a PC?

Not if the press reports about the morning sightings of Mary Kelly put him off, as per Jon's suggestion. Why bother, if it was obvious from the papers that she was alive and well several hours after he'd seen her with a surly-looking weirdo carrying a suspicious parcel?

Taking my tongue out of my cheek, the answer to your question is "yes", although I still find it odd that Hutchinson didn't come forward independently as soon as the news hit the streets and before the confusing/conflicting press reports started to appear. This could have been as early as Friday afternoon or evening; Saturday at the latest.

Comment

Perhaps this has been addressed, but I don’t recall. I don’t quite understand one point, so perhaps someone can explain it.

If Hutchinson’s suspect did not exist, if he was just an imaginary Jewish Music Hall performer as Simon suggests, why is Hutchinson loitering across from Millers Court?

Or do you think he was standing for two hours waiting for Blotchy Client #1 to come out?

Or do you think he was never standing there at all?

Does a person stand across from a court waiting for his own imaginary suspect? If not, why is he loitering?

I don’t quite understand what is being argued.

In other words, how do you explain the hour delay between the spotting of the wall lounger across from the court at 2 a.m and the alleged cry of “murder!” at 3 a.m.? Was he waiting to get up his nerve?

And is this the modus operandi of the Ripper? Did he similarly stand around Bucks Row and Mitre Square for an hour or two before striking?

Or do you think Blotchy has been in that room for two hours and the Ripper is remarkably patient?

The existence of Astrakhan could explain why a man was waiting across from the court. What is your explanation for it?

No mockery intended. It’s a serious question.

Comment

We only have Hutchinson's account that it was him standing in the doorway of the lodging house. As far as I am aware Sarah Lewis never identified him, and only gave an outline description of the man she saw.
Consider this, the Maxwells were looking after Crossinghams at night but they didn't see him loitering there, [Best part of an hour]. Nor did any of the residents, and there must have been dozens [at least] sleeping that particular night, any one of them plus Henry Maxwell could have been the person seen in the doorway [don't forget he was only seen for a couple of minutes, not an hour]. Plus what time did the Lodging house shut its doors? I have read on this thread that they generally stopped open till 4 am, Hutch was there between 2 and 3. Apologies if I am wrong here but wasn't Mcarthy's shop generally open till 3 in the morning as well? That was directly across the road from Hutch's vantage point. We have to consider Mary as well. We know she was the worst for wear with the drink a couple of hours earlier and according to Cox could hardly say goodnight. Would she really go back out down Whitechapel after 1 am in that state on a wet night? Plus nobody seems to have heard or seen her go out either, door shutting etc

Comment

A few posts ago you asked me if any of the serial killers I exemplified had injected themselves into their investigations, to which I responded in the affirmative in the case of Gary Ridgway. Since then discussion has ballooned into a wider one concerning the chronology of the Green River case and the alleged shortcomings of “profiling” and its FBI practitioners.

What hasn’t altered, however, is the fact that Gary Ridgway did indeed inject himself into the Green River investigation under the guise of a helpful informant who knew one of the victims. He did so independently and voluntarily, approaching the King County police in an entirely separate episode to his previous dealings with the authorities.

It was most emphatically not the case that he made his disclosures regarding Christensen when already in police custody as a suspect. Faulty though some of his conclusions may have been, it will take a lot more evidence for me to accuse Douglas of outright lying on this particular point. To be fair though, you quickly abandoned that theory when you discovered that the date of the “injecting” occurred in May of 1984, almost a year after his questioning in connection with the Malvar crime.

If you’re adamant that Ridgway’s prior contact with the police somehow invalidates any comparison with Hutchinson, there are plenty of other serial killers who approached the police as “witnesses” despite having no such prior contact. Not that I see any real obstacle to a Ridgway-Hutchinson comparison. It would hardly make any difference to the likely motivation in both cases (preempting the recognition of a link between himself and the crime via a false informant persona).

I imagine a great many men came under the investigative spotlight, however briefly, during the course of the Green River investigation.

“We are asked to believe that George Hutchinson boldly walked in the front door of a police station out of the blue, plopped himself in a chair, threw his shoulders back, asked to see a detective, and then told them in no uncertain terms that he spent 45 minutes outside the worst crime scene in modern UK history.”

Well, any proposition may be coloured implausible by adding a touch of wholly unnecessary hyperbole, but if you’re asserting that no serial killer has ever approached the police pretending to be a witness (despite having no prior police contact), then it’s not so much “prolifling” you’re flying in the face of; its cold hard fact.

But meanwhile, back on topic, let’s see if Jon’s having any luck trying to convince people that Hutchinson delayed coming forward with his evidence because of an utterly irrational, press-fed conviction that Kelly was killed after 9.00am that morning.

Comment

“Henry Holland left the scene of the murder in Hanbury St. to find a constable, he said:
" I then went for a policeman in Spitalfields Market. The officer told me he could not come."

Holland’s request was for the constable to leave his “fixed point” and accompany him to the Chapman murder scene, whereas Hutchinson’s story involved no such movement on the part of the copper. All the latter had to do - as professional duty and basic common sense dictated - was make a note of Hutchinson’s name and address along with the basic details of his story. That he was in a position to achieve such a basic expedient whilst remaining as “fixed” as he liked to his precious “point” begs the question, why didn’t he?

The answer is that he obviously never existed, and was simply invented by Hutchinson to explain away his failure to alert the police earlier, perhaps mindful of the unsettling “coincidence” of his visit to the police on Monday evening “coinciding” just a bit too well with the closure of the inquest.

Er, No!
The document to which you refer is the day's end report of his duties.

Er, No!
The document to which I refer related specifically to the Hutchinson statement. That WAS the interrogation report, unluckily for you and your naive hope that there was another, conveniently-lost-to-history report which magically clears up all doubts and suspicions regarding Hutchinson (if only it wasn’t left in that cabinet that got bombed in the blitz, eh?).

“The fact that reports of a late morning ToD far outnumbered anything else tends to make a convincing case.”

Again with this perplexing “outnumbered” nonsense. I’ve already explained, a) the “late morning ToD” reports certainly did not outnumber earlier reported times, and b) even if they did, what sane and rational conclusion could you possibly draw from it? You do realise that the newspapers were reporting the same stories? It was not a case of several different women called Caroline Maxwell all independently seeing the same event, with different newspapers being allocated to report on each different Caroline Maxwell!

Unless the above absurdity was true, the reports of a “late morning ToD” don’t somehow converge to form an army and “gang up” against the “early morning ToD” reports.

Moreover, the likelihood is that an innocent, truthful Hutchinson probably stuck with the one newspaper, and would thus have been exposed to both versions. He did not, as I’ve tried to explain before, collate all available press sources and tally up “late” versus “early”. Why would he?

“Ever heard of "It'll not happen to me", do you think that only applies to our generation?”

Within reason, Jon.

I doubt many would risk jumping into a tank of Great Whites after exclaiming “It’ll not happen to me” (i.e. getting gobbled), but to dress as Astrakhan did in that locality would require a comparable degree of folly.

“What is the norm, a serial killer who does, or one who doesn't?”

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Which serial killers conform to the “norm” in all their deeds? “Just the good and honest ABC of serial killing for me, thanks. None of that frilly stuff!” Who are these beige/vanilla serialists, Jon?

Comment

Taking my tongue out of my cheek, the answer to your question is "yes", although I still find it odd that Hutchinson didn't come forward independently as soon as the news hit the streets and before the confusing/conflicting press reports started to appear. This could have been as early as Friday afternoon or evening; Saturday at the latest.

Are you kidding, the guy has been up all night walking the streets. As soon as the Victoria Home opened, his new lodgings, he crashed until late afternoon.....